“The Amateur’s Mind” by IM Jeremy Silman helped me a lot. He talks about all the most popular mistakes his students made and how to fix them. I was guilty of all of them and now I’m good at avoiding them most of the time.
I’m sorry, I just don’t learn that way. I can’t figure out the mechanics of the game by playing. Maybe if I watched a game and each person took the time to explain their rationale, maybe. I have trouble learning card games this way too. “Don’t worry about the rules; you’ll get it as you play.” No. Tell me the rules now. I can’t very well get a grip on the basic mechanics if I don’t know why I want to move or not move this piece or that one.
Example: I get that the queen is important. So when there’s a empty square touching her square, that might mean she’s vulnerable and it might not. Why, dammit, why? If you want me to protect my queen, then I am not moving any piece away from her, ever. Something tells me that’s not playing very well, but I don’t understand why.
It sounds like you already know how the pieces move. Next, the pieces all have points assigned to them. The pawn is 1, the knights and bishops are 3, the rooks are 5, the queens are 9, and the king is the game. Always make sure your pieces are protected by another one of your pieces. When you exchange pieces, always make sure you get at least as many points as you give up.
Sort of, but I can’t remember who goes where. But I could work with a cheat sheet for a while.
Okay, that was something nobody ever mentioned to me before.
How can you make sure your piece are protected by another when you have to keep moving them around? :dubious: Is that a really stupid question?
That I promise you’ll learn super quick. There are only six different pieces/moves. You can worry about the couple of situational exceptions (castling and en passant) later.
One thing about chess: the rules are astonishingly simple. The strategy is astonishingly complex.
They begin the game trapped and useless behind your line of pawns. Developing them means getting them out from behind that line so you can use them at its most basic.
You can test it - set up a board and try to move a queen, bishop, or rook. You can’t.
I should mention that the points are unofficial and there is no real score in chess. However, the player with the higher unofficial points captured usually wins. By protecting your pieces, I mean to just make sure that if your piece can be captured by your opponent, you can take one of his/her pieces of equal or greater value in exchange. If you want to take one his/her pieces, make sure you won’t lose a piece of greater value.
There is no “exactly” to answer this question. White goes first and so it’s generally on the offensive to start as it sets the opening. Black is generally on the defensive to start because it’s constantly reacting to what White does. But everything is dependent upon what your opponent does and what you should do as a reaction to that.
“Controlling the center” is a concept, not a command fulfilled by moving one pawn to e4 and a knight to c3. It involves getting your pieces to work together.
For you, I think simpler is better. Don’t start at the begining. Start at the end.
Clear off the entire board except a rook and king for you and a king for your opponent. Win the game. How? Experiment and see. Watch and learn how to cut off movement. how to force your opponent to push back a row. How your king and rook move as a team towards a checkmate.
Then add in knight to both sides and try again. Or a bishop each (of the same color).
You understand how pieces move. That’s simple. How they move together to strengthen one another is eluding you.
The goal is to capture the enemy king without getting your own captured. (Capturing in a chess context means checkmate – the king is being attacked by an enemy piece and cannot move to any square that is not also under attack, can’t block the attack, and can’t capture the attacker.) That’s it. Everything else anyone tells you in in service of attaining this goal.
Move your pieces early on so that they can “attack” those squares (that is, if your opponent was so silly as to put one of his own pieces there without sufficient backup, you could take it).
Because most pieces (the rooks are the only exception) are most powerful in the center. Take for example a knight in one of the corner squares. It “attacks” (can move to/controls) only two other squares from there. In the center of the board it controls eight other squares. Therefore, generally speaking, he who controls the center of the board has the most threats and the most options.
Well a board with only four squares on it wouldnt’ produce much of a game, would it? The rest of the board is also important. This is a general guideline: if you cede or lose the center you may well regret it.
Actually the “four middle squares” people are referrign to is the four in the very center of the board, between the two opposing armies. Your home row is where all your pieces are (or pieces and pawns, I don’t know. Just a spatial reference, not a huge concept.)
First, when people talking about chess use the word “piece”, they usually mean queen, rook, bishop, knight only. Pawns are pawns and the king is the king. Developing pieces mean getting your knights, queen, rooks and bishop off their butts and out into the field of action (attacking the center of the board, most likely). For knights this can be done directly on the first move if you wish, since they can jump over other stuff in their way. For everything else, you have to move some pawns first.
The most typical first move for white (which moves first) is one of the center pawns, the one in front of the king or queen. Moving one of those pawns two spaces forward controls some of the center squares from the outset and also allows quick development of one of the bishops.
In general, don’t go attacking willy-nilly all over the board with her. It’s tempting for beginning players to do so, because the queen is the most powerful piece, capable of attacking the most squares at one time. However, because the queen IS so valuable, it’s also true that pretty much any other piece on the board can chase her off. So if you get reckless with the queen early on, typically the best that can happen is you waste a lot of time doing nothign useful but evading enemy attacks on her while your opponent is getting all their own pieces into the game. Wasted moves are not a good thing.
Closer to the second, although no piece can really defend a queen, except against the opponent’s queen (see below). This really only applies to the first ten or so moves in the game anyway.
(Queens are hard to defend because of how valuable they are. Take for example a queen in the middle of the board. Your opponent moves out a bishop to a position where it attacks the queen. The bishop is itself in front of/diagonal to one of its pawns, hence defended by it.
If the queen were another bishop, it’d have the option of capturing the enemy bishop. The enemy pawn would recapture, with the net effect of both bishops being off the board, more or less an even trade. If the queen were another bishop and also backed up by its own pawn, it would also have the option of just standing its ground – an attack in either direction ends up with a more or less null result.
But the queen can’t be traded for a bishop – it’ about three times as powerful. You allow a trade like that, you’re probably going to lose. So a queen attacked by a weaker piece (anything else save another queen) must almost always move, whether nominally defended or not. And as mentioned, being forced to move your pieces usually wastes time at best.
The same principle applies to any piece attacked by a weaker piece, by the way. Rooks may have to move (even if defended) when attacked by bishops or knights; even a knight will usually choose to move if attacked by a pawn. All of this assumign the attacker is itself defended if necessary and not left hanging.)
I can’t seem to find it again, but last night as part of my self-tutelage I was watching an online video dealing with that very concept. I’ll try to describe it if I can.
Basically, one player brought his queen out right near the beginning and started moving it about. The other player didn’t really pay much attention to that and simply started getting his bishops and knights out and some of his pawns forward. The result was that the first player was constantly moving his queen around trying not to get it taken (because near the beginning of the game with an emptyish middle ground, as various opposing pieces were moved forward the queen was running out of places it could go).
After a few minutes of this the result was: one player had a crapload of pieces forward in great positions dominating most of the board. In all that time, the other player had only managed to move his queen, and it was in a space it could have gotten to 7 moves ago - i.e. he’d made zero progress at all while his opponent had made craploads of process developing his pieces.
The lesson of the video was - near the beginning of the game, keep your queen back and develop a whole load of other pieces.
That was probably an awful description. Dammit, wish I could remember what the video was called. It was on YouTube, so not too obscure.
[Edit - found the site: http://www.thechesswebsite.com/
Video on this page: http://www.thechesswebsite.com/learn-to-play-chess/chess-queen.php
I’ve found the above site excellent, by the way. The videos are really simple to understand (so many videos whip through a bunch of moves leaving you with a bewildered sense of rapid firing chess notation and no clue what’s going on). These ones are slow, explained, and in sections that you can work through one at a time as you develop understanding of the concepts.
Mastering and remembering those concepts in play are another matter; but at least I understand them as I watch them. Remembering to use them is just gonna be a practice thing, I think.
Well, not quite. You have all the same options when your queen is attacked as you do when your king is attacked: You can move your royalty, you can capture the thing that’s attacking you with something else, or you can move something else in between to block the attack (of course, not all of these three are always options, but they potentially are). In addition, you also have other options you wouldn’t have if your king was attacked: You can move another piece so you’re attacking the other guy’s king (forcing him to respond to that first) or queen (at least setting up for a fair trade), or you can move a piece such that if he moved his attacking piece, it’d open up an attack on his king or queen (this is called “pinning” that piece), or (theoretically at least) you can just let him get away with taking your queen (this is almost never a good idea, but it can very occasionally set you up for larger gains or even checkmate shortly thereafter).
Well, that was somewhat helpful, but I have to reiterate. No. I really don’t think I understand how the pieces move. Some can jump over others, but most can’t?
I’m beginning to realize I’ve had some extremely crappy chess teachers. 
Also, for a guy who is not a word/language guy, I cannot see how my BF will successfully be able to teach me to play chess. I’ll have to come to the Dope for backup help from you guys. Thanks for taking the time to try to begin to explain! At least now it’s starting to sound like an interesting game that I will like, not just be frustrated by because the “how the pieces move” thing seems so damn labyrinthine.
There are six pieces. Each has a move. You only have to learn six moves.
Pawn - 1 forward, take diagonal
Rook - horizontal/vertical straight lines
Bishop - diagonal straight lines
Knight - L shape
Queen - rook + bishop
King - like queen, but only one square
The only one that can jump is the knight (which moves in that L shape).
The videos in the site I linked to above explain them really well and really simply. Honestly, though, the* rules* are simple; there are hardly any of them. It’s the strategy that’s hard!
Only the knights can leap over pieces. (Well, the rook kind of does, too, in a special move called “castling.”)
Seriously, start with one of the many tutorials out there. It sounds like you still need to learn the basic mechanics of the game, and there’s probably hundreds of resources on the web that will try to teach you. If one doesn’t suit your learning style, try another one. The basic moves aren’t too difficult to understand, but there are some idiosyncrasies with the pawns and with that castling move that may be a bit confusing at first.
I laughed that you couldn’t beat level 3; then I played it. I’m not laughing anymore. I guess we’re about the same level. When I do beat level 3, I win handily, but it usually beats me pretty thoroughly. I don’t know how I’m playing differently when I win. I haven’t tried to beat the easier levels.
I always figure that the Knight doesn’t make L-shaped moves nor, strictly speaking, jump. Rather:
- The Rook can move N, S, E or W
- The Bishop can move NW, NE, SE or SW
- The Knight can do neither of these, but only moves NNE, ENE, ESE, SSE, SSW, WSW, WNW or NNW, making the shortest possible move in each case. So in moving from, say, g1 to f3, it is not jumping over g2 or f2 but slipping between them.
Or, to put it yet another way, the Knight makes the shortest possible move that the Queen cannot duplicate.
…not sure, but I think he would advocate a game. Played by random participants in this thread. With excruciating analysis.
I would think Candyman74 could be one player, but not necessarily.
Excellently said. I taught chess moves to one of my kids’ classes in grammar school that way. It seemed to make better sense than the L concept. When you think of it that way, the Knight doesn’t “jump” but rather “scoots” to the opposite corner of a rectangle 2 squares by 3.
There seems to be a big jump from level 2 to level 3. Try level 2 and see how you do; I expect you’ll beat it every time.